Delhi High Court: In a petition seeking grant of regular bail in the FIR registered for the offences under Sections 3/9 of the Officials Secret Act, 1923 read with Sections 409/201/380/381/457/120-B/34 of the Penal Code, 1860, Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, stated that in cases involving alleged acts of espionage and transmission of sensitive information to foreign agencies, the threshold for grant of bail was necessarily higher, and the Court must be guided by the larger interest of justice and national security, rather than merely the passage of time in custody.
Thus, considering that the offence in question involved the security of the entire nation and Indians, and the accused was part of a syndicate, who were working against the security of the country, the Court did not find it a fit case to grant bail to the accused and accordingly dismissed the present application.
Background
In the present case, a secret information was received regarding involvement of certain individuals based in Delhi, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh, who were carrying out anti-national activities and were engaged in espionage for Pakistan. It was further come to the notice of the authorities that these individuals were visiting the Pakistan High Commission located in Delhi.
On 11-7-2021, secret intelligence was received indicating that one person was providing secret/classified documents related to the Indian Army to Pakistan through some persons based in Delhi, at Pokhran. Acting upon the said input, the investigating team proceeded to Pokhran, and on 12-7-2021, the co-accused ‘X’, was apprehended. At the time of his apprehension, he was found in possession of highly secret/classified documents pertaining to the Indian Army, for which he had failed to provide any satisfactory explanation.
Consequently, the present case was registered on 14-7-2021. During investigation, it was revealed by co-accused ‘X’ had obtained the classified documents from other co-accused who was the Naik Clerk, and were passing them on to his handler, an official of the Pakistan High Commission, either directly or through the present accused. The accused was alleged to have operated as a covert financial conduit, facilitating the discrete movement of funds with the intent to conceal their origin and ultimate purpose, which was to aid the transmission of sensitive information to officials of Pakistan High Commission.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the grant of bail could not rest solely on the duration of incarceration. While the right to personal liberty was indeed fundamental, the gravity, nature, and seriousness of the offence, as well as the potential impact on national security and the integrity of the investigative process, must also be considered. In cases involving alleged acts of espionage and transmission of sensitive information to foreign agencies, the threshold for grant of bail was necessarily higher, and the Court must be guided by the larger interest of justice and national security, rather than merely the passage of time in custody.
The Court stated that in the present case, the offence in question was not merely one against a particular individual, institution, or group, but was an offence against the very integrity, sovereignty, and security of Bharat. Such acts, where sensitive and classified information concerning the Indian Armed Forces was allegedly transmitted to foreign handlers, strike at the heart of national security and could not be treated with leniency. These were not conventional crimes, they were the crimes that compromised the trust reposed in individuals who were either part of or have access to our military establishments.
The Court stated that it must be remembered that the nation rests peacefully because its armed forces remained vigilant. It was in their unconditional duty and commitment that the citizenry finds assurance of safety and continuity of the constitutional order. When individuals, driven by financial inducement or otherwise, seek to breach this trust by serving as conduits to foreign agencies, it amounts to an act not only of grave criminality but of betrayal to the nation.
The Court stated that ramifications of such offences are far-reaching, they endanger the lives of countless individuals, compromise military preparedness, and threaten the sovereignty of the State, therefore, did not pass the test of conditions for grant of bail and by no stretch of imagination, could be termed as not grave, not being murder or dacoity. In such circumstances, the judicial response could not be guided solely by the passage of time in custody or procedural delays but must be driven by the larger concern of national interest.
The Court stated that the seriousness and gravity of such offences demand that they be dealt with utmost sternness, keeping in mind that the consequences of such actions extend beyond the immediate actors and strike at the very foundation of the security of the nation.
Thus, considering that the offence in question involved the security of the entire nation and Indians, and the accused was part of a syndicate, who were working against the security of the country, the Court did not find it a fit case to grant bail to the accused and accordingly dismissed the present application.
[Mohsin Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. 1356 of 2025, decided on 22-5-2025]
*Judgment authored by Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Mujeeb Khan, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Manoj Pant, APP for the State along with Shreta Shukla and Manik, Advocates.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
